Telangana High Court
M/S Ksr Infrastructure Projects vs The State Of Telangana on 27 February, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.5944 OF 2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri Saini Aravind, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Pasham Mohith, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for 3rd respondent-Greater Warangal Municipal
Corporation, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Municipal Administration and Urban Development
Department for 1st respondent and learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Revenue Department for 2nd
respondent.
2. Petitioner and 3rd respondent have entered into an
agreement dated 31.07.2018 for widening of existing B.T Road
from Arepally to Laxmi Mega Town Ship via Paidipally on the
specific terms and conditions mentioned therein. As per the
said agreement, petitioner has to complete the execution
within six months. According to the petitioner, it has
executed the said work within the aforesaid period strictly in
terms of the said agreement and there is no lapse on the part
of the petitioner. It is entitled for a sanctioned amount of
Rs.3,95,00,000/-. 3rd respondent has paid an amount of
Rs.1,63,81,927/-. According to the petitioner, the balance
amount due is Rs.1,97,04,155.92/-. In proof of the same,
petitioner has filed copy of payment of first and part bill
issued by 3rd respondent dated 23.05.2022. Petitioner has
also placed reliance on the proceedings dated 06.02.2025 vide
Proc.No.29/CMA/GWMC/CPO/2018, letter dated 27.04.2024
vide Lr.No.05/T1/GWMC/BT Road/Arepally/2018 and letter
dated 04.03.2024 vide Lr.No.06/GWMC/DS/2023-24.
Referring to the same, petitioner has submitted a
representation dated 20.12.2024 to 3rd respondent with a
request to take steps and pay the balance amount as early as
possible. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said
representation, 3rd respondent did not act upon the same.
Aggrieved by the said inaction of 3rd respondent, petitioner
filed the present writ petition.
3. Whereas Sri Pasham Mohith, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for 3rd respondent, on instructions, would
submit that 3rd respondent will consider the said
representation and dispose it of in accordance with law.
4. As discussed supra, there is no dispute with
regard to execution of the agreement dated 31.07.2018 for
widening of existing B.T Road from Arepally to Laxmi Mega
Town Ship via Paidipally by the petitioner herein in terms of
the said agreement. It is also not in dispute that 3rd
respondent has paid an amount of Rs.1,63,81,927/- and the
balance amount due is Rs.1,97,04,155.92/-. Thus, most of
the facts are not in dispute. Therefore, this Court can
entertain the present writ petition as per the principle laid
down by Supreme Court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export
Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited 1. As per
the principle laid down by Apex Court in the said judgment,
even in a contractual matter, writ petition is maintainable.
5. In the light of the said discussion, this Writ
Petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.3 and 5 to
consider the representation dated 20.12.2024 and dispose it
of in accordance with law. Respondent Nos.3 and 5 shall also
consider the proceedings dated 06.02.2025 and letters dated
27.04.2024 and 04.03.2024. If respondent Nos.3 and 5 are
not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioner, they
1 (2004) 3 SCC 553
shall assign specific reasons and pass an order and
communicate the said order to the petitioner. They shall
complete the said exercise within a period of four (04) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Date: 27.02.2025
KL
